Must a married couple attempt to have children?

[suissemissed]

I’m a bit unsure as to the Church’s teaching on this subject… I know that one of the essential “ends” of marriage is for it to be fruitful and result in children. I also know that the Church, through the use of NFP, allows couples to space out births if there exists “serious motives…, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions…” (Humanae Vitae), But my question is: If the “serious motives” continue to exist for the entire length of the couple’s marriage (until one of them dies), can they continue to use NFP indefinitely, and thus intentionally try to avoid having children for the duration of their marriage? Must a couple make a legitimate attempt to have kids at some point? Or is simply being open to the possibility of procreation all that is required (provided the serious motives persist)?

 

[ac_claire]

If there are really serious issues that would prevent a couple from EVER having children, and from using NFP to avoid for their entire marriage, then I think it would make more sense for them to re-think whether or not it’s prudent for them to even get married.

Other than that…I hope someone else more articulate and knowledgeable about this subject will reply and answer this for you. Personally, I can’t really imagine any issues that could come up that would fall into the grave/just/serious reason to avoid conceiving category and stay there for the duration of a couple’s life. Do you have any examples in mind of what you’re thinking of?

 

[PeggyAA]

I have to agree with the previous poster. If a couple is mature/stable/committed enough to be married, then they should, at some point, be ready to have children.

Plus, even with NFP, if God wishes to bless a couple with a child, He’ll do it!

 

[prolifewife]

Yes, it is true that the majority of couples at some point need to try to have children. There are a few more serious health issues that the couple may need to postpone having children indefinitely. This is best discussed between the two of you and priest who knows your situation. I have serious health issues that would allow me to postpone having children indefinitely through the use of NFP. From the beginning we took a risk and left this choice in God’s hands and it turns out that we are infertile anyways! However, it does not always work out so nicely. So, yes, some couples will have to use NFP indefinitely and it can be morally acceptable if their conditions (physical/mental) are serious enough.

 

[PJM]

=suissemissed;6739706]I’m a bit unsure as to the Church’s teaching on this subject… I know that one of the essential “ends” of marriage is for it to be fruitful and result in children. I also know that the Church, through the use of NFP, allows couples to space out births if there exists “serious motives…, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions…” (Humanae Vitae), But my question is: If the “serious motives” continue to exist for the entire length of the couple’s marriage (until one of them dies), can they continue to use NFP indefinitely, and thus intentionally try to avoid having children for the duration of their marriage? Must a couple make a legitimate attempt to have kids at some point? Or is simply being open to the possibility of procreation all that is required (provided the serious motives persist)?

**This continues to be a "HOT TOPIC" **

The Church advocates the use of NFP, as it remains open to the possibility of life.Some hold the position [which uneducated me does not find in the Church documents on the topic.] Having read and reread ***Huamnae Vitae and Evangeliul Vitae, I personally have not discerned the position that “ONLY UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS” is NFP to be used.

I hold my position on the grounds that even NFP requires sacrfice, charity and restraint.

I look foward to seeing the discussion on this topic.

God’s continued Blessings.***

 

[ac_claire]

This continues to be a "HOT TOPIC"

The Church advocates the use of NFP, as it remains open to the possibility of life.Some hold the position [which uneducated me does not find in the Church documents on the topic.] Having read and reread Huamnae Vitae and Evangeliul Vitae, I personally have not discerned the position that “ONLY UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS” is NFP to be used.

I believe the words used in those documents and others on the subject are “serious” reasons or “just” reasons. Forgive me for not quoting directly. At one point I had all of this bookmarked, but I know that several popes have written on the topic and it can all be found online.

The “extreme conditions” interpretation…I can actually understand that, because it seems like a whole lot of couples these days go into marriage with NFP to avoid as their default mode. Until, I guess, they can see that the conditions would be absolutely perfect (or at least more perfect, in their minds) to start having children. The fact is, this is completely contrary to the entire tradition of the Church and her teachings on marriage. It’s in the vows that the married couple must be open to life, and that having children is the primary purpose of marriage. NFP is something we can use when we *need *it, but it’s not like a loophole.

(My husband and I ran into this all the time when we got married. We conceived on our honeymoon and several members of our Catholic family, as well as acquaintences, were really dismayed that we hadn’t waited like we were -presumably- supposed to. It was very weird.)

I personally think a lot of the reason for the mindset I mentioned above is because of the NFP training that comes with Catholic marriage prep these days. It’s a hard situaiton because I **in no way **think that the NFP requirement should be removed. Maybe the teachers as a whole should place more emphasis on the exceptional nature of using NFP, instead of it being a default thing? I don’t know.

Also, the fact that what constitutes a “serious enough reason” is left to the individual’s conscious also has led to a lot of couples (an epidemic IMO) who see NOT using NFP as the exception. They’ve got it all backwards. And their justification is, “well this is between me, God and our priest”…all of those resourses who’s interpretation is left open to human weakness and fallibility. But again…I would never say the Church has been wrong in what it teaches, and I frankly can’t see any other way that it could be done. So, it’s just one of those things that has happened.

The only way to fix it, I think, would be to maybe ensure that Catholics are better catechized today about what marriage is, and about personal honesty and character.

Just another :twocents:

 

[Just_Lurking]

An important point about NFP is that it is a decision that the couple makes anew every month, or actually every day when they make a decision about whether or not to have relations right then and there.

So if you are asking if the couple can make a decision, at one single point in time, to definitely use NFP throughout the rest of the marriage, no matter what, the answer is no.

But the couple can certainly make the decision to use NFP today, knowing full well that the serious reasons that justify its use today are likely to persist forever. Just be aware that God laughs at our plans, because only He knows the future for certain.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Of course a married couple must attempt to have children it is the main reason for marriage. However not everyone is suited to the marriage state, a person who believes they will never be in a position to fulfil the duties of marriage is such a person, though the duties are much easier to fulfil than many people imagine thanks to Gods help.

"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day. " (Gaudium Et Spes , Vatican II).

The primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring; the second purpose is the mutual help of spouses, and the third is the remedy for concupiscence.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

The Church does not “advocate” for NFP.

The Chruch forbids artificial birth control outright, it permits NFP in certain circumstance, the preferred form of birth control however is none at all, that gets lost in the Churches fight against ABC but that is the true position.

 

[Rach620]

I tend to agree with others who have said that because procreation is one of the main purposes of marriage, and because Catholic spouses take a vow to be open to receiving children as blessings from God on their wedding day, that yes, they should at some point in their marriage attempt to have children. I’m not sure it’s phrased in this way anywhere in Church teaching, but that seems to be the gist of it.

If a couple going into marriage knows that one or both of them suffer from physical or psychological ailments that will prevent them from ever parenting, then it sounds like they should probably reconsider whether marriage is their vocation. If they discover these ailments or conditions after they are married, then they would be just/serious grounds to avoid pregnancy, and with prayer and guidance they might be justified in avoiding pregnancy their entire married lives. None of us can say for sure. If the problem is a severe medical ailment that would make pregnancy dangerous, I would tend to think that NFP use to avoid pregnancy throughout marriage would be justified and the couple would be encouraged to parent in other ways, though I can’t say for sure.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Admittedly, I am not a scholar on this, but I must say I was surprised by all the answers stating that at some point they MUST try to have a child.

I was inclined to say that is a serious health condition exists, it’s OK to use NFP indefinitely.

I can’t imagine being TOLD that if, for example, my DH and I were both carriers of a disease like Cystic Fibrosis, that we HAD to try to get pregnant anyway.

 

[ac_claire]

Admittedly, I am not a scholar on this, but I must say I was surprised by all the answers stating that at some point they MUST try to have a child.

I was inclined to say that is a serious health condition exists, it’s OK to use NFP indefinitely.

I can’t imagine being TOLD that if, for example, my DH and I were both carriers of a disease like Cystic Fibrosis, that we HAD to try to get pregnant anyway.

What’s posted here is the Church’s position. It’s not that they would have to try to have a child but they would have to be open to life. Planning from the get-go to use strict NFP to avoid for the duration of your marriage isn’t really being open to life, is it? That’s when we’re talking about a normal couple. You’re mentioning an exceptional case, so I couldn’t say for sure.

Exceptional cases exist but they’re very, very rare. I hate to post about extreme exceptions because I’m afraid that they’ll be looked at by some as the standard, you know? The standard is: marriage and having children go hand in hand.

As I understand it, such a couple as you mentioned with severe genetic issues on BOTH SIDES would be counseled on whether or not marriage is the correct vocation for them. If it was, and they got married, they’d have to be open to life.

Whether or not they could use NFP on a month by month basis because of their health issues, I don’t know. But if they did do that, while at the same time they went into the marriage with the mindset (as you seem to be suggesting) that they’d use NFP to avoid forever, I think there’d maybe be a good case for that marriage not being valid.

But again…can’t say for sure because you’re talking about an exceptional situation. I almost think that your question would be a good reason for a seperate thread, since again, this thread is very vague and just asks for the Church’s position.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

What’s posted here is the Church’s position.** It’s not that they would have to try to have a child but they would have to be open to life. Planning from the get-go to use strict NFP to avoid for the duration of your marriage isn’t really being open to life, is it?** That’s when we’re talking about a normal couple. You’re mentioning an exceptional case, so I couldn’t say for sure.

Exceptional cases exist but they’re very, very rare. I hate to post about extreme exceptions because I’m afraid that they’ll be looked at by some as the standard, you know? The standard is: marriage and having children go hand in hand.

As I understand it, such a couple as you mentioned with severe genetic issues on BOTH SIDES would be counseled on whether or not marriage is the correct vocation for them. If it was, and they got married, they’d have to be open to life.

Whether or not they could use NFP on a month by month basis because of their health issues, I don’t know. But if they did do that, while at the same time they went into the marriage with the mindset (as you seem to be suggesting) that they’d use NFP to avoid forever, I think there’d maybe be a good case for that marriage not being valid.

But again…can’t say for sure because you’re talking about an exceptional situation. I almost think that your question would be a good reason for a seperate thread, since again, this thread is very vague and just asks for the Church’s position.

I guess this goes to the heart of a debate I have seen here often – can NFP be used to avoid pregnancy altogether? A lot of people say “no”-- but others seem to say yes, that using NFP is always open to life because there is not ABC in the equation and is OK as long as you have a really good reason. (And it should be a reason you have discussed with your priest, who can help you determine if your reason is good!)

I would think that if one has really exceptional circumstances - a life-threatening illness being the easiest example to come up with – that you would be OK using NFP indefinitely. Of course, if you were to become pregnant even though you were trying to avoid it, you would have to be accepting of the pregnancy.

I see tons of people on these board and in Ask an Apologist wanting to know if they can use ABC in really extreme circumstance, and the answer always seems to be “No - use NFP or abstain,” so I don’t know why, when the question is turned around to “Can we use NFP or abstain?” the answer becomes “No, you shouldn’t get married.”

And I have one more thing to add to further complicate it – so say the couple in question, who are both carriers for Cystic Fibrosis, use NFP for their whole marriage and never conceive, but adopt several children, are they still sinning?

 

[PJM]

=ac claire;6742584]I believe the words used in those documents and others on the subject are “serious” reasons or “just” reasons. Forgive me for not quoting directly. At one point I had all of this bookmarked, but I know that several popes have written on the topic and it can all be found online.

The “extreme conditions” interpretation…I can actually understand that, because it seems like a whole lot of couples these days go into marriage with NFP to avoid as their default mode. Until, I guess, they can see that the conditions would be absolutely perfect (or at least more perfect, in their minds) to start having children. The fact is, this is completely contrary to the entire tradition of the Church and her teachings on marriage. It’s in the vows that the married couple must be open to life, and that having children is the primary purpose of marriage. NFP is something we can use when we *need *it, but it’s not like a loophole.

(My husband and I ran into this all the time when we got married. We conceived on our honeymoon and several members of our Catholic family, as well as acquaintences, were really dismayed that we hadn’t waited like we were -presumably- supposed to. It was very weird.)

I personally think a lot of the reason for the mindset I mentioned above is because of the NFP training that comes with Catholic marriage prep these days. It’s a hard situaiton because I **in no way **think that the NFP requirement should be removed. Maybe the teachers as a whole should place more emphasis on the exceptional nature of using NFP, instead of it being a default thing? I don’t know.

Also, the fact that what constitutes a “serious enough reason” is left to the individual’s conscious also has led to a lot of couples (an epidemic IMO) who see NOT using NFP as the exception. They’ve got it all backwards. And their justification is, “well this is between me, God and our priest”…all of those resourses who’s interpretation is left open to human weakness and fallibility. But again…I would never say the Church has been wrong in what it teaches, and I frankly can’t see any other way that it could be done. So, it’s just one of those things that has happened.

The only way to fix it, I think, would be to maybe ensure that Catholics are better catechized today about what marriage is, and about personal honesty and character.

Just another :twocents:

THANKS, EXCELLENT POST:thumbsup:

 

[ac_claire]

I guess this goes to the heart of a debate I have seen here often – can NFP be used to avoid pregnancy altogether? A lot of people say “no”-- but others seem to say yes, that using NFP is always open to life because there is not ABC in the equation and is OK as long as you have a really good reason. (And it should be a reason you have discussed with your priest, who can help you determine if your reason is good!)

I would think that if one has really exceptional circumstances - a life-threatening illness being the easiest example to come up with – that you would be OK using NFP indefinitely. Of course, if you were to become pregnant even though you were trying to avoid it, you would have to be accepting of the pregnancy.

I see tons of people on these board and in Ask an Apologist wanting to know if they can use ABC in really extreme circumstance, and the answer always seems to be “No - use NFP or abstain,” so I don’t know why, when the question is turned around to “Can we use NFP or abstain?” the answer becomes “No, you shouldn’t get married.”

I think the difference here has to do with *going into the marriage *planning (from the start) to abstain or use NFP to avoid for the duration of the marriage. Whether this is because there is a life-threatening illness on the table or not, it’s still a situation that makes you pause, simply because having children is the primary purpose of marriage. The thing about exceptional situations is you can’t really get the answer from the Catechism or papal documents or Ask an Apologist.

And I have one more thing to add to further complicate it – so say the couple in question, who are both carriers for Cystic Fibrosis, use NFP for their whole marriage and never conceive, but adopt several children, are they still sinning?

The issue would still be, does the couple go into the marriage intending to never, ever have natural children. I think adoption is a totally different subject, and would be of course a great thing for the couple to do.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Admittedly, I am not a scholar on this, but I must say I was surprised by all the answers stating that at some point they MUST try to have a child.

I was inclined to say that is a serious health condition exists, it’s OK to use NFP indefinitely.

I can’t imagine being TOLD that if, for example, my DH and I were both carriers of a disease like Cystic Fibrosis, that we HAD to try to get pregnant anyway.

If you had such a hereditary disease and didn’t want to risk passing on to the next generation then the solution to your dilemma would be to not get married. Personally I would say it is better for a child to exist with CF than to never exist at all, their life’s are no less valuable because of such an illness and they are no less loved nor are they any less likely to make it to heaven in fact they are probably more likely than most to merit eternal salvation. Eugenics is not compatible wit the Christian understanding of the value of life.

As it stands most people with CF are infertile anyway something like 97% of men I believe.

The teaching is not complicated, marriage is for the creation of children, if you do not want to create children then there is no good reason to get married. If you remove procreation from marriage you are left with people marrying for sex. Because that is the only thing you are forbidden to do single but permitted to do when married and even then the couple would be cheating because the marriage act is meant to be ordered to procreation.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

If you had such a hereditary disease and didn’t want to risk passing on to the next generation then the solution to your dilemma would be to not get married.

As it stands most people with CF are infertile anyway something like 97% of men I believe.

The teaching is not complicated, marriage is for the creation of children, if you do not want to create children then there is no good reason to get married. If you remove procreation from marriage you are left with people marrying for sex. Because that is the only thing you are forbidden to do single but permitted to do when married and even then the couple would be cheating because the marriage act is meant to be ordered to procreation.

I believe people with CF are often infertile, but carriers of the disease are not. To have a child with CF, the child must inherit the genes from both parents.

 

[rapunzel77]

the key is to be open to life. I think that is what the Church teaching is. The couple cannot try to frustrate the process by using birth control. It is part of the conditions for being married. As for as avoiding pregnancy due to health issues, etc then I think you need to talk to your priest about it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The teaching is not complicated, marriage is for the creation of children, if you do not want to create children then there is no good reason to get married. If you remove procreation from marriage you are left with people marrying for sex. Because that is the only thing you are forbidden to do single but permitted to do when married and even then the couple would be cheating because the marriage act is meant to be ordered to procreation.

This logic would also apply to those who are infertile, yet the Catholic Church allows those suffering from sterility to marry and then have sex.

 

[ac_claire]

I believe people with CF are often infertile, but carriers of the disease are not. To have a child with CF, the child must inherit the genes from both parents.

Again, we’re talking about a really, really rare situation that isn’t going to be relevant to the vast majority of married couples. But since it has come up, I agree with Advocatus Fidei…Proposing that the practical, moral thing to do in such a situation would be to use NFP or abstinance indefinitely sort of suggests eugenics; a presupposition that it’d be better for a person with CF to have never been born. Which is 100% against what the Church believes.